Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

M/S. Books & Forms vs Insulation Materials Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd on 21 June, 2019

1 Sl. June 21,

48. 2019 High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. 1911 of 2019 M/s. Books & Forms Versus Insulation Materials Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Mr. Souradipto Banerjee, Mr. Arnab Roy, ...for the petitioner.

The petitioner, being the defendant in a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, has preferred the instant revisional application challenging an order whereby the trial court refused to entertain the petitioner's application for stay of the eviction suit, till disposal of an appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the adjudication by the Rent Controller as regards fair rent.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that unless the appeal is decided finally, the fair rent fixed by the Controller could not be taken to have attained finality and be the basis for adjudication of the suit or the connected application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

Although there is substance in the contention of the 2 petitioner that the language of Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act contemplates deposit at the rate of rent last paid, and it is doubtful as to whether such expression also takes within its fold fair rent as adjudicated by the Controller, the pendency of such an appeal cannot be a deterrent in adjudication of the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and the eviction suit itself, since it would be open to both sides to argue on the point, as indicated above, at all stages of the suit and interlocutory applications filed in connection therewith. It would be rather premature to assume at this juncture that the trial court would not give hearing to the petitioner on that count.

As such, the trial court was well within its jurisdiction in refusing stay, as prayed for by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 1910 of 2019 is dismissed without interfering with the impugned order but in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

There will be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of dns putting in the requisites.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) 3